I talking about the rule "that the changes in the Septuagint were made under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and are to be accepted as part of God’s continuing revelation."

The apostles didn't believe that, why should we?

Paul did, or at least that's what he told Timothy. He said "all scripture" and "from a child thou hast known", not "most of what you read minus a few books and some passages in some books and a few passages that I don't personally think weren't translated correctly".

Yes, it seems that Mr. Persson is slipping, and betrayed the sola scriptura mantra "All scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine for reproof for correction for instruction in righteousness." It seems Persson qualifies that, translated it a la New World Translation "All scripture judged by one man over two thousand years after the fact as translated correctly i.e. in conformity to his views, is given by inspiration...."

Btw, Joseph Smith Jr. believed the same thing:

Quote

The Articles of Faith of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints 8. We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Lets see you claim to be in apostolic sucession & yet say that someone (me) who finds an apostolic source as evidence of a veneration practice by apostolic Christians of the remains a martyred apsotolic Christian & that I trust these people as observing proper Christian burial rite as relying on unreliable hearsay?

The Church is Apostolic (ecclesia apostolica) inasmuch as all its members to the Last Day come to faith in Christ through the Word of the Apostles (John 17:20: πιστεύσοντες διὰ λόγου αὐτῶν εἰς ἐμέ) and cling to the Word of the Apostles (Acts 2:42: προσκαρτεροῦντες τῇ διδαχῇ τῶν ἀποστόλων), and this over against all departures from the truth of Scripture. Rom. 16:17: “Avoid them,” namely, those who “cause divisions and offenses contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned.”Pieper, F. (1999). Vol. 3: Christian Dogmatics (electronic ed.) (411). St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House.

1999? That's only 1900 years too late to be in contact with an Apostle to receive their teaching.

President Pieper also comes nearly 1800 years too late too.

Like you, he was sent by no one sent by the Apostles, hence not sent by Christ, therefore not sent by God.

Quia means he held, and required, the belief that the Book of Concord did not contradict Scripture, and because ("quia") of that, one must subcribe to its teachings.Why Bible-Believing Lutherans Subscribe to the Book of Concordhttp://www.wlsessays.net/node/385

I used to belong to the "Quatenus" Lutherans, who believe in the Book of Concord insofar as ("quatenus") it doesn't contradict scripture. Taking that to its logical conclusion, I left Lutheranism for Orthodoxy, as did Jaroslav Pelikan, one of the BoC's translators (in addition to being a renowned Church historian).

Some of the Vatican's bishops subscribed to the Book of Concord's promulgation, and bishops of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland subcribe quia to the Book of Concord, but, besides the obvious problems of these "bishops" being installed outside the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, since the BoC contains the filioque, it obviously contradicts the scripture of Apostolic Tradition, as condemned by the Council of Constanitnople IV, and these bishops therefore fall under the same condemnation. The EP comdemned the heart of the BoC, the Augsburg Confession, as heresy, and the Confession of Patriarch Dositheus, accepted at the Synod of Jerusalem condemned several articles that the Lutherans held in common with the Calvinists (and Perssonism, it seems) as heresy.

That being so, your authority claims that the Church is Apostolic (ecclesia apostolica) inasmuch as all its members to the Last Day come to faith in the filioque (explicitely taught by the BoC, and condemned accordingly by the Orthodox) as the Spirit proceeding from Christ, claiming that through the Word of the Apostles and clinging to the filioque as the Word of the Apostles Since we reject the filioque (and other heresies in the BoC), your authority, President Pieper, tells you in your citation Rom. 16:17: “Avoid [us],” namely, those who “cause divisions and offenses contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned" e.g. the filioque.

So how is your walking disorderly, and not in the Tradition received of the Apostles, Apostolic? Waking in the way of the Pharisees, Sadducees and Scribes, Apostolic?

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

The LXX text predates the Masoretic Text. Heck, the Vulgate text predates the Masoretic text. We have physical copies of the LXX in one codex that predate the eariest complete Masoretic scroll by over half a millenium. So how can the LXX change anything in the Masoretic text?

Evangelicals threw a massive fit after the publication of the RSV OT. Part of the reason is that the translators "de-Christed" the Old Testament, but much of their fury was aimed at those who had challenged the divine authority of the Masoretic Text by littering the revision with passages attested by the Vulgate, LXX, the Syriac etc... Yet even translations such as the NIV couldn't help themselves in resorting to other ancient versions to correct perceived defects in the text. The ESV also (sometimes blindly) scrubbed clean many LXX readings in the RSV OT, even one reading attested to by the Apostle Paul.

1. Have you missed the point that the Hebrew version of the OT produced by the Masoretes is a good 1000 years younger than the LXX, which even Jewish scholars who lived in the period contemporary to its translation into Greek, regarded as an authoritative and correct text? So where on earth do you get this incomprehensible notion that the LXX led to "changes" in the OT? It was the Masoretes who changed the OT to suit ther own ends, such as changing references which could lead people to realise that the OT prophecies were indeed linked to Jesus Christ. The incarnational prophecies in Isaiah are particularly significant.

2. What say you regarding the persistent referencing of the LXX, not the Masoretic, not just by the apostles, but of Christ Himself, in the New Testament?

3. Do you have any intention of confronting the wealth of evidence so many of us have supplied against you?

I agree the NT uses the Septuagint mostly, but there are occasions where the Hebrew was chosen against it. A few examples Mt 13:35; 22:24; 27:46; Rom 9:17; 11:35; 12:19; 1 Cor 3:19; 2 Cor 9:9.

That means the NT writers did not see its changes from the Hebrew as inspired.

I find it impossible to believe that God allowed the authors of the inspired New Testament to employ material from biblical sources which He did not inspire.

God allowed Paul to employ two pagan "poets", Epimenides the Cretan (c. 600 B.C.) "For in thee we live and move and have our being” and Phainomena a Cilician Aratus (born 310 B.C.) about Zeus: "for we are truly his offspring.”

KJV Acts 17:28 For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring. (Act 17:28 KJV)

So why would God stop Paul from using a good translation of the Hebrew scriptures, that most could read?

They had one, the LXX. And they read it.

How could they read the Masoretic text? It wouldn't exist for nearly a millenium into the future. And most didn't speak Hebrew in Palestine (hence the Targumim into Aramaic), and were Greek speaking in the Diaspora. Hence they couldn't read it even if they had it.

Hebrew is an ancient language, it existed prior to the Masoretic, there were other Hebrew texts available.

Logged

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. (Rom 1:18-19 NKJ)

It analyzes the quotes in parallel columns, Categorizing them A-F.Category A: Is where the Masoretic, LXX and NT all agree.B: Where the NT follows the LXXC: Where the NT follows the Masoretic against the LXX (that's where I was getting my examples)D: Where the NT follows the LXX against the MasoreticE:Where neither text is followed, and context ignored.F: Allusions to OT texts.

It boils down to faith in God. But my faith is not a blind faith, its consistent with facts. I only point out the Orthodox claims for the LXX are impossible as the apostles themselves don't follow them. They clearly did not view the LXX text as the text, they go against it often enough to show they sometimes checked the Hebrew beneath the Greek.

But its certainly a valuable translation, and I do consider its readings when studying difficult texts, and often I find it explains what the Hebrew meant to the ancients. But I believe Christ 100%, and therefore as the LXX is a translation, Christ's words apply to the Hebrew...and that means the Massoretic has all Christ said it would have, every meaningful word, no matter how small...every idea God wants us to know, regardless how insignificant.

NKJ Proverbs 25:2 It is the glory of God to conceal a matter, But the glory of kings is to search out a matter. (Pro 25:2 NKJ)

« Last Edit: August 13, 2010, 01:58:19 AM by Alfred Persson »

Logged

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. (Rom 1:18-19 NKJ)

In defense of the Masoretic text, the text stabilized long before 1000AD, and the readings found in the Vulgate (which was based on the Hebrew texts of its day) more often than not side with the MT whenever there are textual conflicts with the LXX. So while the MT may be 1000 years old, the bulk of the readings go back centuries before that. I'm told most of the Peshitta books have a strong affinity to the MT.

Is the MT the best Hebrew text? Perhaps not. But it's a stable one. I would tend to take notice if a cluster of early witnesses (including "proto-Masoretic" ones like the Latin or Syriac) attest to defects in the text. I think it would be stupid to put out an Old Testament translation and not give these ancient witnesses some respect.

I agree the NT uses the Septuagint mostly, but there are occasions where the Hebrew was chosen against it. A few examples Mt 13:35; 22:24; 27:46; Rom 9:17; 11:35; 12:19; 1 Cor 3:19; 2 Cor 9:9.

That means the NT writers did not see its changes from the Hebrew as inspired.

Actually, if you look at the website I just linked, most of the verses you cite above do not come directly from the Masoretic. Either they are matches with the Septuagint, or they agree with both the Septuagint and Masoretic (the two texts were not always different,) or in a couple of instances the verse differs from both texts.

Click where it says "All quotations in New Testament Order." You'll see that what you wrote above is not true. Just a couple of those verses come from the Masoretic and disagree with the Septuagint.

In defense of the Masoretic text, the text stabilized long before 1000AD, and the readings found in the Vulgate (which was based on the Hebrew texts of its day) more often than not side with the MT whenever there are textual conflicts with the LXX. So while the MT may be 1000 years old, the bulk of the readings go back centuries before that. I'm told most of the Peshitta books have a strong affinity to the MT.

Is the MT the best Hebrew text? Perhaps not. But it's a stable one. I would tend to take notice if a cluster of early witnesses (including "proto-Masoretic" ones like the Latin or Syriac) attest to defects in the text. I think it would be stupid to put out an Old Testament translation and not give these ancient witnesses some respect.

Origen used various texts, Hebrew and Greek, and it appears the apostles did also. While I consider the MT the final word, the other versions often interpret that text better than modern scholarship today.

Logged

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. (Rom 1:18-19 NKJ)

I agree the NT uses the Septuagint mostly, but there are occasions where the Hebrew was chosen against it. A few examples Mt 13:35; 22:24; 27:46; Rom 9:17; 11:35; 12:19; 1 Cor 3:19; 2 Cor 9:9.

That means the NT writers did not see its changes from the Hebrew as inspired.

Actually, if you look at the website I just linked, most of the verses you cite above do not come directly from the Masoretic. Either they are matches with the Septuagint, or they agree with both the Septuagint and Masoretic (the two texts were not always different,) or in a couple of instances the verse differs from both texts.

Click where it says "All quotations in New Testament Order." You'll see that what you wrote above is not true. Just a couple of those verses come from the Masoretic and disagree with the Septuagint.

It's a great site. If you click on the verse, it will give you the actual Septuagint version, Hebrew version, and the New Testament verse, so you can compare.

Thanks, I will check it out. I know the MT was standardized, and Christ friendly readings obscured...but Christ's words have a text in mind, and it was Hebrew...and the only Hebrew Text these last few centuries was the MT.

Its impossible Christ is wrong...I have never found Him wrong about anything else, therefore its sound to believe Him on this also.

NKJ Matthew 5:18 "For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. (Mat 5:18 NKJ)

MIT Matthew 5:18 For I assure you that until such time as heaven and earth pass off the scene, not one smallest letter or stroke of the pen will drop out of the law until every aspect is fulfilled. (Mat 5:18 MIT) -The Idiomatic Translation of the New Testament

A "jot" or "yod" is the name of the smallest Hebrew letter in the alphabet.A tittle served to distinguish one letter from another.

So Christ is referring to a Hebrew version (of course not the Masoretic, but its parent or grand parent), not Greek version. So I believe all that was in the ancient text found its way into the MT, every jot and tittle of it (having meaning) is there.

BUT I look forward to that Eastern Orthodox Bible" mentioned on your site, I trust they will have as a module in Bibleworks, which program, if you don't have, you are missing out.

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. (Rom 1:18-19 NKJ)

but Christ's words have a text in mind, and it was Hebrew...and the only Hebrew Text these last few centuries was the MT.

Its impossible Christ is wrong...I have never found Him wrong about anything else, therefore its sound to believe Him on this also.

Christ's primary language was Aramaic. It is beyond doubt He quoted from the Septuagint during His earthly life. Both the Gospels anf Jewish scholars who lived at the same time as He trod the earth.

You may, or may not be, aware that Greek was the lingua franca, the common language, of the Holy Land, both in the century or two before Christ (indeed, the very period where the Septuagint came into existence), as well as for at least several centuries beyond the time of Christ.

Let's not forget that the language in which the books and letters which became the New Testament (yes, Alfred, the very Gospels and Epistles, and even, the Book of Revelation, written by Apostle John the Evangelist on the Greek island of Patmos at the turn of the second century - 96AD, acording to Orthodox tradition) was Greek Then, as now, folks in that part of the world became naturally conversant with a variety of languages. A modern equivalent would be that of Central and Eastern Europeans, who, by sheer force of geography and political influence, became multilingual from childhood.

Is it not, therefore, quite feasible, that Jesus Christ was multilingual? That He knew Greek, as well as his native Aramaic, as well as the liturgical Hebrew of His kin? It is indeed an imprimatur to the authenticity of the Septuagint that Christ Himself quotes that very document. It is also damning to the Masoretic OT that certain crucial passages are utterly different in content to the LXX, such as the incarnational prophecies in Isaiah I referred to earlier.

Quote

So I believe all that was in the ancient text found its way into the MT, every jot and tittle of it (having meaning) is there.

The Hebrew letter yod corresponds to the Greek letter iota (the Hebrew and Greek alphabets have a common origin). A tittle, to the Greeks, might mean the iota subscript that marks the dative singular in many nouns, or either of the breath-marks placed before an initial vowel, or perhaps, even the ancient pitch-accent marks, which were already moot because Greek at that time was stress-accenting.

Logged

The end of the world is as near as the day of your death;watch and pray.

In Exod 32:4 The LXX follows the Hebrew plural "gods (elohiym, theoi) which usually refers to the One true God in a "plural of majesty." If it were an inspired translation, it would have rendered it singular "God" (theos) because the context indicates that is the reference of the Hebrew.

Could you quote the LXX version and the alternative version, of the verse in question?

The word icon does appear in Hosea (13:2):καὶ προσέθετο τοῦ ἁμαρτάνειν ἔτι καὶ ἐποίησαν ἑαυτοῖς χώνευμα ἐκ τοῦ ἀργυρίου αὐτῶν κατ' εἰκόνα εἰδώλων ἔργα τεκτόνων συντετελεσμένα αὐτοῖς αὐτοὶ λέγουσιν θύσατε ἀνθρώπους μόσχοι γὰρ ἐκλελοίπασιν13:2 And now they have sinned increasingly, and have made for themselves a molten image of their silver, according to the iicon (Bretton "fashion) of idols, the work of artificers accomplished for them: they say, Sacrifice men, for the calves have come to an end

So you can't distinguish between the icon of idols and the icon of the one True God.

The calves in Exodus, 1 Kings and Hosea are images, but they are used to worship God as the Orthodox would an icon, God is their prototype, hence God's reaction to that use is definitely relevant to icons also having a prototype. They both cut a figure.

Notice how other gods and images are listed separately: 7 Thou shalt have none other gods before me. 8 Thou shalt not make thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the waters beneath the earth: 9 Thou shalt not bow down thyself unto them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me, (Deu 5:7-9 KJV)

So this is OK?because it's not another god, just a beast on the earth.

The Church wrote in her book, the Bible that God created man in His image and likeness, and that He emptied Himself and took the likeness of man. This god who serves as your prototype for calves in Exodus, I Kings (actually III Kingdoms) and Hosea must have made the bovine in his image and likeness, and taken the likeness of a calf, and is true god and true bull.

Or rather false god and true bull.

There is a calf in the icon of the Nativity, but that's not Christ Our God. The calf is worshipping Him.

That wasn't an answer, and its iconographers who accomplish two heresies, with one icon.As they image because of the incarnation of Christ, they are tearing the humanity of Christ, from His deity = Nesotorian.As they image the Person of Christ, with one image, they confuse the natures in one icon = Monophysite.

Yes, you have chanted that mantra before. But none of us have converted to Hinduism in the meantime, so we won't be worshipping your sacred cow, even if you put it in Bethel or Dan. Rather, we'll be serving up the sacred beef filled theological arguments of St. John and Christ's Church.

They had rebelled against both Moses and God, dismissing the miraculous events that occurred when God brought them out of Egypt, attributing it to Moses and saying "he is gone." They wanted new gods to lead them:

NKJ Exodus 32:1 Now when the people saw that Moses delayed coming down from the mountain, the people gathered together to Aaron, and said to him, "Come, make us gods that shall go before us; for as for this Moses, the man who brought us up out of the land of Egypt, we do not know what has become of him." (Exo 32:1 NKJ)

Aaron believes he can turn them back to God by accommodating their need for something visible:

2 And Aaron said to them, "Break off the golden earrings which are in the ears of your wives, your sons, and your daughters, and bring them to me." (Exo 32:2 NKJ)

He makes an image so they can worship the True God via the image:

4 And he received the gold from their hand, and he fashioned it with an engraving tool, and made a molded calf. Then they said, "This is your god, O Israel, that brought you out of the land of Egypt!" 5 So when Aaron saw it, he built an altar before it. And Aaron made a proclamation and said, "Tomorrow is a feast to the LORD." 6 Then they rose early on the next day, offered burnt offerings, and brought peace offerings; and the people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to play. (Exo 32:4-6 NKJ)

God called what He did corruption, they defiled their worship with an image:

7 And the LORD said to Moses, "Go, get down! For your people whom you brought out of the land of Egypt have corrupted themselves. 8 "They have turned aside quickly out of the way which I commanded them. They have made themselves a molded calf, and worshiped it and sacrificed to it, and said,`This is your god, O Israel, that brought you out of the land of Egypt!'" (Exo 32:7-8 NKJ)

As the lxx translates the plural "gods" as "God" elsewhere when it refers to God, it should have done so here.

Here we have the danger of a translator who doesn't speak the language.

For sake of argument, let's say that the original text matched neither the LXX nor the Masoretic text, but the NKJ (which is based on the Masoretic Text and LXX), and that it was plural of majesty with singular agreement.

The Spirit then inspired the change (which in the actual texts we have is the original) to the plural, voiding the plural of majesty, and making the reference clearly polytheistic (much like the inspired translation makes clear that Isaiah said "the Vigin," and not just "a young woman").

That would undo your agenda, but uphold Orthodox theology. But then, God is interested in upholding Orthodox theology, and not the agenda of Perssonism.

« Last Edit: August 13, 2010, 07:45:48 AM by ialmisry »

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

‘The Orthodox Church has the same New Testament as the rest of Christendom. As its authoritative text for the Old Testament it uses the ancient Greek translation known as the Septuagint. Where this differs from the Hebrew text (which happens quite often), Orthodox believe that the changes in the Septuagint were made under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and are to be accepted as part of God’s continuing revelation.’-Ware, Kallistos (Timothy): The Orthodox Church, p.208; Penguin 1963,

If the changes in the Septuagint are inspired and are to be accepted as God's continuing revelation, how is it Matthew and Paul follow the Hebrew and not the changes in the Greek Septuagint?

Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel. Mt. 23:24.

85%+ of the NT uses the LXX, when the readings differ. With odds like that, your problem is explaining why we should accept the Hebrew as inspired.

In Matthew, the tradition of the Church, besides naming the Apostle Matthew the Evangelist Matthew (whose Gospel leaves its author anonymous and unattributed), attests that he wrote his Gospel first in Hebrew/Aramaic and then rendered it in Greek (my working theory is that he compiled a logia type Gospel in Aramaic, and then rendered it into narrative on the model of St. Mark's Gospel).

Quote

Examples where the NT preferred the MT over the LXX:

"Raise you up" in Ro 9:17 certainly closer to MT "raised you up" than LXX's "thou been preserved."

For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "For this very purpose I have raised you up(exegeira se, 1825), (Rom 9:17 NKJ)

"But indeed for this purpose I have raised you up (he'amadtiykaa, 5975) (, (Exo 9:16 NKJ)

And for this purpose hast thou been preserved (dieterethes), (Exo 9:16 LXE)

Most brothers of a husband are her brother in law. Actually, all of them.

Quote

asking, "Teacher, Moses said, 'IF A MAN DIES HAVING NO CHILDREN, HIS BROTHER AS NEXT OF KIN (epigambreusei, 1918) SHALL MARRY HIS WIFE, AND RAISE UP CHILDREN FOR HIS BROTHER.' (Mat 22:24 NAU)

"When brothers live on the same property and one of them dies without a son, the wife of the dead man may not marry a stranger outside the family. Her brother-in-law(yabaamaah, 2993) is to take her as his wife, have sexual relations with her, and perform the duty of a brother-in-law for her. (Deu 25:5 CSB)

And if brethren should live together, and one of them should die, and should not have seed, the wife of the deceased shall not marry out of the family to a man not related: her husband's brother(ho adelphos tou andros autes) shall go in to her, and shall take her to himself for a wife, and shall dwell with her. (Deu 25:5 LXE)

In Greek there is no "technical [read:"legal"] term." There is no need: the Greeks didn't observe Leverite Marriage, and the Church forbids it.

So here, definitely a distinction without a difference. I Timothy 6:20. II Timothy 2:16.

I Timothy 6:3If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness; 4He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings, 5Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself. II Timothy 2:14 14Of these things put them in remembrance, charging them before the Lord that they strive not about words to no profit, but to the subverting of the hearers. 15Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. 16But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness.

Quote

"Vegence is mine, I will repay" is literally correct for Deu 32:35; LXX "in the day of vengeance I will repay,"

NKJ Romans 12:19 Beloved, do not avenge yourselves, but rather give place to wrath; for it is written, "Vengeance is Mine, I will repay," says the Lord. (Rom 12:19 NKJ)

NKJ Deuteronomy 32:35 Vengeance is Mine, and recompense; Their foot shall slip in due time; For the day of their calamity is at hand, And the things to come hasten upon them.' (Deu 32:35 NKJ)

LXE Deuteronomy 32:35 In the day of vengeance(en hemera ekdikeseos) I will recompense, whensoever their foot shall be tripped up; for the day of their destruction is near to them, and the judgments at hand are close upon you. (Deu 32:35 LXE)

For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, "He catches the wise in their own craftiness"; (1Co 3:19 NKJ)

He catches the wise in their own craftiness, And the counsel of the cunning comes quickly upon them. (Job 5:13 NKJ)

Job 5:13 who takes the wise in their wisdom, and subverts the counsel of the crafty (Job 5:13 LXE)

I'll defer to your knowledge of the crafty.

« Last Edit: August 13, 2010, 08:31:17 AM by ialmisry »

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Your basic presupposition is that the MT is correct because it's written in Hebrew. Is this accurate?

No, my basic premise is Christ and His apostles are correct. They used the Septuagint, they used the Hebrew, they used Aramaic versions. To say a translation is inspired and its changes are the "new deal" cannot be correct, the NT doesn't follow that rule.

Not one jot or tittle having meaning is lost, it does not follow men haven't added to the scripture:

NKJ Matthew 5:18 "For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. (Mat 5:18 NKJ)

That Christ is referring to jot and tittle that have meaning is deducible from "till all is fulfilled."

Therefore in the Masoretic

You just betrayed your agenda Hebrew=Masoretic Text=original and authritative.

Christ, His Apostles, the NT do not quote the Masoretic Text, as it didn't exist. If fact, they don't quote anything in Hebrew at all (though some Aramaic is quoted).

Quote

is every jot and tittle that will be fulfilled, that Christ said would not pass away.

It may be the mss has been revised to adopt less friendly readings to Christians than otherwise existed, but that didn't lose their meaning, the truth of God is still there.

So the rabbis corrupting the text against Christ doesn't bother you.

Quote

Christ is never wrong, He is my LORD.

Well you go on walking disorderly,and not in the Tradition of His Apostles, but in that of the Pharisees, Sadduccees and Scribes. We will stick to the straight and narrow path the Apostles have laid, and stand firm on that.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

I agree the NT uses the Septuagint mostly, but there are occasions where the Hebrew was chosen against it. A few examples Mt 13:35; 22:24; 27:46; Rom 9:17; 11:35; 12:19; 1 Cor 3:19; 2 Cor 9:9.

That means the NT writers did not see its changes from the Hebrew as inspired.

I find it impossible to believe that God allowed the authors of the inspired New Testament to employ material from biblical sources which He did not inspire.

God allowed Paul to employ two pagan "poets", Epimenides the Cretan (c. 600 B.C.) "For in thee we live and move and have our being” and Phainomena a Cilician Aratus (born 310 B.C.) about Zeus: "for we are truly his offspring.”

KJV Acts 17:28 For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring. (Act 17:28 KJV)

So why would God stop Paul from using a good translation of the Hebrew scriptures, that most could read?

They had one, the LXX. And they read it.

How could they read the Masoretic text? It wouldn't exist for nearly a millenium into the future. And most didn't speak Hebrew in Palestine (hence the Targumim into Aramaic), and were Greek speaking in the Diaspora. Hence they couldn't read it even if they had it.

Hebrew is an ancient language,

So is Ancient Egyptian, and Greek for that matter. Your point?

Quote

it existed prior to the Masoretic, there were other Hebrew texts available.

but not to you. You make enough mischief with the texts we have, Lord only knows what you would do with ones you make up.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

In defense of the Masoretic text, the text stabilized long before 1000AD, and the readings found in the Vulgate (which was based on the Hebrew texts of its day) more often than not side with the MT whenever there are textual conflicts with the LXX. So while the MT may be 1000 years old, the bulk of the readings go back centuries before that. I'm told most of the Peshitta books have a strong affinity to the MT.

Is the MT the best Hebrew text? Perhaps not. But it's a stable one. I would tend to take notice if a cluster of early witnesses (including "proto-Masoretic" ones like the Latin or Syriac) attest to defects in the text. I think it would be stupid to put out an Old Testament translation and not give these ancient witnesses some respect.

Origen used various texts, Hebrew and Greek, and it appears the apostles did also. While I consider the MT the final word,

On what autority?

Interesting how you refuse to consider the Definition of the Fathers of the Church of the Seventh Ecumenical Council, which predates the MT of the rabbis of Judaism by a century, as "the final word."

Quote

the other versions often interpret that text better than modern scholarship today.

How do you know?

« Last Edit: August 13, 2010, 08:53:29 AM by ialmisry »

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

I agree the NT uses the Septuagint mostly, but there are occasions where the Hebrew was chosen against it. A few examples Mt 13:35; 22:24; 27:46; Rom 9:17; 11:35; 12:19; 1 Cor 3:19; 2 Cor 9:9.

That means the NT writers did not see its changes from the Hebrew as inspired.

Actually, if you look at the website I just linked, most of the verses you cite above do not come directly from the Masoretic. Either they are matches with the Septuagint, or they agree with both the Septuagint and Masoretic (the two texts were not always different,) or in a couple of instances the verse differs from both texts.

Click where it says "All quotations in New Testament Order." You'll see that what you wrote above is not true. Just a couple of those verses come from the Masoretic and disagree with the Septuagint.

It's a great site. If you click on the verse, it will give you the actual Septuagint version, Hebrew version, and the New Testament verse, so you can compare.

Thanks, I will check it out. I know the MT was standardized, and Christ friendly readings obscured...but Christ's words have a text in mind, and it was Hebrew

Then why does he quote the Aramaic?

Quote

...and the only Hebrew Text these last few centuries was the MT.

then you are out of luck.

Quote

Its impossible Christ is wrong...

Christ isn't standing trial before your fellow rabbis anymore.

Quote

I have never found Him wrong about anything else, therefore its sound to believe Him on this also.

Those who refuse to look at the icon, look in the mirror instead.

Quote

NKJ Matthew 5:18 "For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. (Mat 5:18 NKJ)

MIT Matthew 5:18 For I assure you that until such time as heaven and earth pass off the scene, not one smallest letter or stroke of the pen will drop out of the law until every aspect is fulfilled. (Mat 5:18 MIT) -The Idiomatic Translation of the New Testament

A "jot" or "yod" is the name of the smallest Hebrew letter in the alphabet.A tittle served to distinguish one letter from another.

So Christ is referring to a Hebrew

No, Aramaic.

Quote

version (of course not the Masoretic, but its parent or grand parent),

Sooo, you are admitting that your hypothetical Hebrew text has passed away.

Quote

not Greek version. So I believe all that was in the ancient text found its way into the MT, every jot and tittle of it (having meaning) is there.

And the authority of your belief? Because it is not Christ, His Apostles or His Church.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

The Jews did not have a set canon that all Jews everywhere accepted at the time of Christ. The Pharisees, the Sadducees, the Samaritans, etc. believed in less books than most of the other Jews, so when Jesus was instructing those who used only the Pentateuch, or a lesser canon, he used the version of the Bible they used, but the rest of the time, fully 2/3 of the time, he used the Septuagint. (A great example to follow, reaching Christ from sources the potential convert already believes in and not using what he/she does not believe in) Since Jesus teaches from the Septuagint, anyone who does not believe the Septuagint is inspired, blessed, and truly the Bible, does not believe in the teachings of Jesus the Christ!

In defense of the Masoretic text, the text stabilized long before 1000AD, and the readings found in the Vulgate (which was based on the Hebrew texts of its day) more often than not side with the MT whenever there are textual conflicts with the LXX. So while the MT may be 1000 years old, the bulk of the readings go back centuries before that. I'm told most of the Peshitta books have a strong affinity to the MT.

Is the MT the best Hebrew text? Perhaps not. But it's a stable one. I would tend to take notice if a cluster of early witnesses (including "proto-Masoretic" ones like the Latin or Syriac) attest to defects in the text. I think it would be stupid to put out an Old Testament translation and not give these ancient witnesses some respect.

Evidently you investigated this question. So did I, after being thoroughly confused by all the equal possibilities, I defaulted to faith in Christ and His apostles. Paul said God entrusted the Jews with His oracles:

KJV Romans 3:1 What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision? 2 Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God. 3 For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect? 4 God forbid (Rom 3:1-4 KJV)

Its always possible what Christ said applied only to the Law, but I choose to believe it applies to all scripture unless proven different:

18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. (Mat 5:18 KJV)

There is nothing worse than doubts about God's word, for one's faith. Hence that is the first tactic Satan employed:

CJB Genesis 3:1 Now the serpent was more crafty than any wild animal which ADONAI, God, had made. He said to the woman, "Did God really say, 'You are not to eat from any tree in the garden'?" (Gen 3:1 CJB)

If wrong, I'll repent on Judgment day, but I suspect defaulting to faith in Christ and His apostles will be praised, not punished, in the Day when the secrets of the heart are made manifest.

16 in the day when God will judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ, according to my gospel. (Rom 2:16 NKJ)

« Last Edit: August 13, 2010, 01:26:46 PM by Alfred Persson »

Logged

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. (Rom 1:18-19 NKJ)

In defense of the Masoretic text, the text stabilized long before 1000AD, and the readings found in the Vulgate (which was based on the Hebrew texts of its day) more often than not side with the MT whenever there are textual conflicts with the LXX. So while the MT may be 1000 years old, the bulk of the readings go back centuries before that. I'm told most of the Peshitta books have a strong affinity to the MT.

Is the MT the best Hebrew text? Perhaps not. But it's a stable one. I would tend to take notice if a cluster of early witnesses (including "proto-Masoretic" ones like the Latin or Syriac) attest to defects in the text. I think it would be stupid to put out an Old Testament translation and not give these ancient witnesses some respect.

Evidently you investigated this question. So did I, after being thoroughly confused by all the possibilities, I defaulted to faith in Christ and His apostles. Paul said God entrusted the Jews with His oracles:

If you really defaulted to faith in Christ and His Apostles, you would have joined the Church Jesus Christ founded and His Apostles established.

Its always possible what Christ said applied only to the Law, but I choose to believe it applies to all scripture unless proven different:

That's nice. Who cares what you believe? It's not truth just because you believe it is, and you already shot down our reason to believe you an authority on matters of Christian doctrine with your logical fallacies on both this and the icons thread.

There is nothing worse than doubts about God's word, for one's faith. Hence that is the first tactic Satan employed:

God's Word is Jesus Christ, not the Scriptures; the Scriptures are merely the verbal icon of Christ the Word. Even if we were to agree that the Scriptures are the words of God, we harbor no doubts about these words. The only thing we doubt here is what YOU present to be God's word.

If wrong, I'll repent on Judgment day, but I suspect defaulting to faith in Christ and His apostles will be praised, not punished, in the Day when the secrets of the heart are made manifest.

That is, if you're really defaulting to faith in Christ and His Apostles. If it ends up that you've been resisting faith in Christ and His Apostles all these years and in all these arguments, then what will you have to say for yourself on Judgment Day when the secrets of the heart are made manifest?

In defense of the Masoretic text, the text stabilized long before 1000AD, and the readings found in the Vulgate (which was based on the Hebrew texts of its day) more often than not side with the MT whenever there are textual conflicts with the LXX. So while the MT may be 1000 years old, the bulk of the readings go back centuries before that. I'm told most of the Peshitta books have a strong affinity to the MT.

Is the MT the best Hebrew text? Perhaps not. But it's a stable one. I would tend to take notice if a cluster of early witnesses (including "proto-Masoretic" ones like the Latin or Syriac) attest to defects in the text. I think it would be stupid to put out an Old Testament translation and not give these ancient witnesses some respect.

Evidently you investigated this question. So did I, after being thoroughly confused by all the possibilities, I defaulted to faith in Christ and His apostles. Paul said God entrusted the Jews with His oracles:

If you really defaulted to faith in Christ and His Apostles, you would have joined the Church Jesus Christ founded and His Apostles established.

Its always possible what Christ said applied only to the Law, but I choose to believe it applies to all scripture unless proven different:

That's nice. Who cares what you believe? It's not truth just because you believe it is, and you already shot down our reason to believe you an authority on matters of Christian doctrine with your logical fallacies on both this and the icons thread.

There is nothing worse than doubts about God's word, for one's faith. Hence that is the first tactic Satan employed:

God's Word is Jesus Christ, not the Scriptures; the Scriptures are merely the verbal icon of Christ the Word. Even if we were to agree that the Scriptures are the words of God, we harbor no doubts about these words. The only thing we doubt here is what YOU present to be God's word.

If wrong, I'll repent on Judgment day, but I suspect defaulting to faith in Christ and His apostles will be praised, not punished, in the Day when the secrets of the heart are made manifest.

That is, if you're really defaulting to faith in Christ and His Apostles. If it ends up that you've been resisting faith in Christ and His Apostles all these years and in all these arguments, then what will you have to say for yourself on Judgment Day when the secrets of the heart are made manifest?

You call that tirade "apologetic?"

I love it, consider it all joy, thanks.

Logged

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. (Rom 1:18-19 NKJ)

In defense of the Masoretic text, the text stabilized long before 1000AD, and the readings found in the Vulgate (which was based on the Hebrew texts of its day) more often than not side with the MT whenever there are textual conflicts with the LXX. So while the MT may be 1000 years old, the bulk of the readings go back centuries before that. I'm told most of the Peshitta books have a strong affinity to the MT.

Is the MT the best Hebrew text? Perhaps not. But it's a stable one. I would tend to take notice if a cluster of early witnesses (including "proto-Masoretic" ones like the Latin or Syriac) attest to defects in the text. I think it would be stupid to put out an Old Testament translation and not give these ancient witnesses some respect.

Evidently you investigated this question. So did I, after being thoroughly confused by all the possibilities, I defaulted to faith in Christ and His apostles. Paul said God entrusted the Jews with His oracles:

If you really defaulted to faith in Christ and His Apostles, you would have joined the Church Jesus Christ founded and His Apostles established.

Its always possible what Christ said applied only to the Law, but I choose to believe it applies to all scripture unless proven different:

That's nice. Who cares what you believe? It's not truth just because you believe it is, and you already shot down our reason to believe you an authority on matters of Christian doctrine with your logical fallacies on both this and the icons thread.

There is nothing worse than doubts about God's word, for one's faith. Hence that is the first tactic Satan employed:

God's Word is Jesus Christ, not the Scriptures; the Scriptures are merely the verbal icon of Christ the Word. Even if we were to agree that the Scriptures are the words of God, we harbor no doubts about these words. The only thing we doubt here is what YOU present to be God's word.

If wrong, I'll repent on Judgment day, but I suspect defaulting to faith in Christ and His apostles will be praised, not punished, in the Day when the secrets of the heart are made manifest.

That is, if you're really defaulting to faith in Christ and His Apostles. If it ends up that you've been resisting faith in Christ and His Apostles all these years and in all these arguments, then what will you have to say for yourself on Judgment Day when the secrets of the heart are made manifest?

St. Augustine of Hippo was one of those who criticized Jerome’s decision to make his translation into Latin out of the Hebrew. He was concerned about two issues: (1) that the new Latin translation would lead to divergences with the Greek-speaking part of the Church, and (2) that the translation would not be authoritative since Jerome’s skill in the interpretation of Hebrew would be questioned, and validated only with great difficulty.

For my part, I would much rather that you would furnish us with a translation of the Greek version of the canonical Scriptures known as the work of the Seventy translators. For if your translation begins to be more generally read in many churches, it will be a grievous thing that, in the reading of Scripture, differences must arise between the Latin Churches and the Greek Churches, especially seeing that the discrepancy is easily condemned in a Latin version by the production of the original in Greek, which is a language very widely known; whereas, if any one has been disturbed by the occurrence of something to which he was not accustomed in the translation taken from the Hebrew, and alleges that the new translation is wrong, it will be found difficult, if not impossible, to get at the Hebrew documents by which the version to which exception is taken may be defended. And when they are obtained, who will submit, to have so many Latin and Greek authorities: pronounced to be in the wrong? Besides all this, Jews, if consulted as to the meaning of the Hebrew text, may give a different opinion from yours: in which case it will seem as if your presence were indispensable, as being the only one who could refute their view; and it would be a miracle if one could be found capable of acting as arbiter between you and them. [From Augustine of Hippo’s, Letter LXXI, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series, Volume 1.]

It would perhaps be an interesting study to determine the extent to which using different Old Testament texts has contributed to the separation between East and West through the centuries. Clearly, Augustine’s own reliance on a poor Latin translation of the book of Romans led him into erroneous conclusions regarding original sin.

Augustine went on to state his desire that Jerome would provide a fresh translation of the Old Testament into Latin from the Septuagint, since it “has no mean authority, seeing that it has obtained so wide circulation, and was the one which the apostles used, as is ... proved by looking to the text itself.” In that statement, I think, it is clear that Augustine was correct. Yet Jerome was of a contrary opinion, stating “Wherever the Seventy agree with the Hebrew, the apostles took their quotations from that translation; but, where they disagree, they set down in Greek what they had found in the Hebrew. [Jerome’s Apology, Book II.]” But that claim is manifestly false - unless Jerome’s Hebrew text was radically different from what we possess today.http://mysite.verizon.net/rgjones3/Septuagint/spindex.htmi.e. the MT.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Hey everybody, professors have told me that there is no "Septuagint" in and of itself. There is the translation of the Torah in Alexandria by the seventy, but aren't there numerous other Greek translations in circulation for the rest of the Old Testament canon?

So if we are arguing about the Septuagint being all-divine and inspired, then which Septuagint?

Also, why is everyone in this thread imagining the Bible in the way that the Muslims view the Qur'an? Is there some authoritative version of the text, free from all error and discrepancy that plopped out of the heavens? If Christians talk about perfect things plopping out of the heavens, then I suppose we could only say that about Christ Himself...

The Bible is a part of human history and was made by humans under divine inspiration. If the Greek translations have errors, why would anyone assume that the Hebrew also did not? These people weren't going into ecstatic trances when they wrote this stuff. Many of the text were likely edited over long periods of time before a final product was settled on. Did the text become "divine and unalterable" only at the point that they were officially promulgated by the Temple authority structure?

In defense of the Masoretic text, the text stabilized long before 1000AD, and the readings found in the Vulgate (which was based on the Hebrew texts of its day) more often than not side with the MT whenever there are textual conflicts with the LXX. So while the MT may be 1000 years old, the bulk of the readings go back centuries before that. I'm told most of the Peshitta books have a strong affinity to the MT.

Is the MT the best Hebrew text? Perhaps not. But it's a stable one. I would tend to take notice if a cluster of early witnesses (including "proto-Masoretic" ones like the Latin or Syriac) attest to defects in the text. I think it would be stupid to put out an Old Testament translation and not give these ancient witnesses some respect.

Evidently you investigated this question. So did I, after being thoroughly confused by all the equal possibilities, I defaulted to faith in Christ and His apostles.

KJV Romans 3:1 What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision? 2 Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God. 3 For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect? 4 God forbid (Rom 3:1-4 KJV)

and the Hebrews translated the LXX.

As for the Pharisees, Sadducees and Scirbes, in whose way (Halakhah), the Protestants walk, Paul says:

Quote

Rom.9:6Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel: 7Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. 8That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed. 9For this is the word of promise, At this time will I come, and Sara shall have a son. 10And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac; 11(For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;) 12It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger. 13As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated. 14What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid. 15For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. 16So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy. 17For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth. 18Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth. 19Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? 20Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? 21Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? 22What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: 23And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory, 24Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles? 25As he saith also in Osee, I will call them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was not beloved. 26And it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people; there shall they be called the children of the living God. 27Esaias also crieth concerning Israel, Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, a remnant shall be saved: 28For he will finish the work, and cut it short in righteousness: because a short work will the Lord make upon the earth. 29And as Esaias said before, Except the Lord of Sabaoth had left us a seed, we had been as Sodoma, and been made like unto Gomorrha. 30What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith. 31But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness. 32Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone; 33As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed

10:11Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved. 2For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge. 3For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God. 4For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth. 5For Moses describeth the righteousness which is of the law, That the man which doeth those things shall live by them. 6But the righteousness which is of faith speaketh on this wise, Say not in thine heart, Who shall ascend into heaven? (that is, to bring Christ down from above:) 7Or, Who shall descend into the deep? (that is, to bring up Christ again from the dead.) 8But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach; 9That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. 10For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. 11For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed. 12For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him. 13For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. 14How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? 15And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things! 16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report? 17So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. 18But I say, Have they not heard? Yes verily, their sound went into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world. 19But I say, Did not Israel know? First Moses saith, I will provoke you to jealousy by them that are no people, and by a foolish nation I will anger you. 20But Esaias is very bold, and saith, I was found of them that sought me not; I was made manifest unto them that asked not after me. 21But to Israel he saith, All day long I have stretched forth my hands unto a disobedient and gainsaying people.

11:1I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. 2God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew. Wot ye not what the scripture saith of Elias? how he maketh intercession to God against Israel, saying, 3Lord, they have killed thy prophets, and digged down thine altars; and I am left alone, and they seek my life. 4But what saith the answer of God unto him? I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal. 5Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace. 6And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work. 7What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded 8(According as it is written, God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear;) unto this day. 9And David saith, Let their table be made a snare, and a trap, and a stumblingblock, and a recompence unto them: 10Let their eyes be darkened, that they may not see, and bow down their back alway. 11I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy. 12Now if the fall of them be the riches of the world, and the diminishing of them the riches of the Gentiles; how much more their fulness? 13For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office: 14If by any means I may provoke to emulation them which are my flesh, and might save some of them. 15For if the casting away of them be the reconciling of the world, what shall the receiving of them be, but life from the dead? 16For if the firstfruit be holy, the lump is also holy: and if the root be holy, so are the branches. 17And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert graffed in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree; 18Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee. 19Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be graffed in. 20Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear: 21For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee. 22Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off. 23And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in: for God is able to graff them in again. 24For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert graffed contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall these, which be the natural branches, be graffed into their own olive tree? 25For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in. 26And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: 27For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins. 28 As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers' sakes. 29For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance. 30For as ye in times past have not believed God, yet have now obtained mercy through their unbelief: 31Even so have these also now not believed, that through your mercy they also may obtain mercy. 32 For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all. 33O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out! 34For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counseller? 35Or who hath first given to him, and it shall be recompensed unto him again? 36For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever. Amen[/size]

Its always possible what Christ said applied only to the Law, but I choose to believe

Quote

John 6:52The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat? 53Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. 54Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. 55For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. 56He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. 57As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me. 58This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever. 59These things said he in the synagogue, as he taught in Capernaum. 60 Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it? 61When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you? 62What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? 63It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. 64But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him. 65And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father. 6:66 From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him. 67Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away? 68Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life. 69And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God. 70Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve?15:1“I am the true vine, and my Father is the gardener. 2He cuts off every branch in me that bears no fruit, while every branch that does bear fruit he prunesa so that it will be even more fruitful. 3You are already clean because of the word I have spoken to you. 4Remain in me, and I will remain in you. No branch can bear fruit by itself; it must remain in the vine. Neither can you bear fruit unless you remain in me. 5“I am the vine; you are the branches. If a man remains in me and I in him, he will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing. 6If anyone does not remain in me, he is like a branch that is thrown away and withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned. 7If you remain in me and my words remain in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be given you. 8This is to my Father’s glory, that you bear much fruit, showing yourselves to be my disciples.15Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you. 18“If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first. 19If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you. 20Remember the words I spoke to you: ‘No servant is greater than his master.’b If they persecuted me, they will persecute you also. If they obeyed my teaching, they will obey yours also. 21They will treat you this way because of my name, for they do not know the One who sent me. 22If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not be guilty of sin. Now, however, they have no excuse for their sin. 23He who hates me hates my Father as well. 24If I had not done among them what no one else did, they would not be guilty of sin. But now they have seen these miracles, and yet they have hated both me and my Father. 25 But this is to fulfill what is written in their Law: ‘They hated me without reason.' 26“When the Counselor comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father, he will testify about me. 27And you also must testify, for you have been with me from the beginning.

I know the MT was standardized, and Christ friendly readings obscured...but Christ's words have a text in mind, and it was Hebrew and the only Hebrew Text these last few centuries was the MT.So Christ is referring to a Hebrew version (of course not the Masoretic, but its parent or grand parent),

The Hebrew letter yod corresponds to the Greek letter iota (the Hebrew and Greek alphabets have a common origin). A tittle, to the Greeks, might mean the iota subscript that marks the dative singular in many nouns, or either of the breath-marks placed before an initial vowel, or perhaps, even the ancient pitch-accent marks, which were already moot because Greek at that time was stress-accenting.

Instead of another multi-page thread, how about you just tell us your point, Alfred? Why is it so important to you to discredit the OT used by the Orthodox? What's in it that you dislike?

I dislike untruth, declaring the Septuagint inspired, claiming its changes to the Hebrew "were made under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and are to be accepted as part of God’s continuing revelation" is not true.Once one swallows that error, then all the apocrypha becomes scripture, and all the unscriptural ideas in them become dogma...and before you know it, your bowing down to icons believing that is what God would have you do.That's what I dislike, how a little leaven leavens the whole lump.

Rom. 11:16 For if the firstfruit be holy, the lump is also holy: and if the root be holy, so are the branches. Mat. 13:33 The kingdom of heaven is like unto leaven, which a woman took, and hid in three measures of meal, till the whole was leavened.

CJB Genesis 3:1 Now the serpent was more crafty than any wild animal which ADONAI, God, had made. He said to the woman, "Did God really say, 'You are not to eat from any tree in the garden'?" (Gen 3:1 CJB)

LOL. Did Satan write the MT? Seems God's teaching wasn't written in Eden, but was by word."Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle." I Thess. 2:15.

Btw, what monstrasity is the CJB? And the reason to be pretentious and use "ADONAI" instead of "LORD?"

If wrong, I'll repent on Judgment day, but I suspect defaulting to faith in Christ and His apostles will be praised, not punished, in the Day when the secrets of the heart are made manifest.

So you will repent for refusing to walk in the Way of Christ and His Apostles, and accept the LXX as the work of the Holy Spirit?"And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come." Mat. 12:32.

Quote

16 in the day when God will judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ, according to my gospel. (Rom 2:16 NKJ)

John 9:5Jesus heard that they had cast him out; and when he had found him, he said unto him, Dost thou believe on the Son of God? 36He answered and said, Who is he, Lord, that I might believe on him? 37And Jesus said unto him, Thou hast both seen Him, and it is He that talketh with thee. 38And he said, Lord, I believe. And he worshipped Him. 39And Jesus said, For judgment I am come into this world, that they which see not might see; and that they which see might be made blind. 40And some of the Pharisees which were with him heard these words, and said unto him, Are we blind also? 41Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth.

« Last Edit: August 13, 2010, 03:26:15 PM by ialmisry »

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

It is the Church, not Scripture itself, which makes the determination of what writings are inspired Scripture and what are not. That is why we have the books and texts we do, and not the contents of the Nag Hamadi library. Without the Church, there is no Scripture, whether the Old or New Testaments. And, whoever does not have the Church as his mother, does not have God as his Father.

Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt

If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.

Quote from: orthonorm

I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.

Hey everybody, professors have told me that there is no "Septuagint" in and of itself. There is the translation of the Torah in Alexandria by the seventy, but aren't there numerous other Greek translations in circulation for the rest of the Old Testament canon?

So if we are arguing about the Septuagint being all-divine and inspired, then which Septuagint?

And you still haven't explained why you are not guilty of plagerism and copyright infringment.

Huh?

Quote

In other words, the Ecumenical Councils.

I had no implication toward any ecumenical councils in mind, no. Rather I had gospel preaching, gospel experiences, and the virtual Christian consensus along with the blessing of the Spirit on the use of the 66 books of the Old and New Testaments.

Yes, so you keep saying. But that 66 book Bible didn't come off the press until 1824, around the time Evangelicalism was coming into existence. And it was plagerism to take the Pharisees who formed the Masoretic text, a Jewish text formed nearly a millenium after the birth of the Church (and hence NOT the text the NT quotes), and pass it off as a Christian Bible. No. Give credit where credit is due: you've decided to walk according to

Of course, there's the problem that the Masoretic text is mangling the previous Hebrew canon: the Talmud itself comments on Sirach, the Jews celebrate Hanukkah based on the Scriptural warrant of Maccabees, etc. The Jew Theodotion translated Daniel from a text that resembles the LXX and not the Masoretic text (it includes, Susanna, the Song of the Three Youths and Bel and the Dragon) in the second century AD. Wouldn't know that from the Masoretic text. But if one is going to take the Rabbis as one's authority, one has to follow their error I guess.

Where did you get that text for your NT? Copyright infringment: the Church did the heavy work of sorting through those other Gospels, and you don't want to give credit where credit is due. ALL manuscripts of the NT are coupled with the Church's canon of the OT. You take the Rabbis' OT, why not their NT? You can't have ours.

I had thought of starting a thread on Perssonism's teaching on sola scriptura, but decided the thread "Sola Scriptura - A Diversion From the True Word of God" would be an appropriate place to taste test, to spew out as poison, Perssonism's flavor of Sola Scriptura.

In fact, so great is the episcopacy, the presbyters of Acts 15, that St. Peter, introduding himself as "an [note, btw: "a," not "the"] Apostle of Jesus Christ," nonetheless identifies himself as a "fellow presbyter" when he invokes himself as a witness of Christ and a partaker of His glory, to exhort his fellow presbyters, whom he identifies as the bishops (5:1-2), and the Apostle John, the disciple whom Christ loved, doesn't give his autority to his second and third epistles as neither the Disciple nor Apostle, but as "the presbyter."

"He that heareth you heareth me; and he that despiseth you despiseth me; and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me." Luke 10:16 You cannot have the Church's book without the Church.

3) All the Christian manuscripts of the OT are the LXX, or derived from it. The only exception is the Vulgate: Jerome took a Jewish Hebrew text and translated from that. The problem is that because that text had passed through Jewish (meaning those Hebrews who had rejected our Messiah) hands for several centuries, i.e. Jerome was not working from 1st century texts, it can still be said to be a Jewish text. He was criticized for doing so at the time.

In other words, the LXX was translated by those we would say were of the same Faith as us (symbolized by the legend of St. Symeon as being one of the translators, and his problem with the translation of "virgin" leading to him being told he would not die until he saw its fulfillment). Those Hebrews who accepted our Messiah continued to use the LXX and it Hebrew Vorlage (varient readings in the Dead Sea Scrolls agree with the LXX, as do some pre-Christian scraps of the OT elsewhere). Those who rejected Him used another text type, which was approved at Jamnia AFTER the birth of the Church. The Masoretic text dates after Chalcedon, for instance.

In other words, the LXX has never been outside of those whom we would consider outside the Faith, which is a problem for Protestants: if you trust our Church to copy the Scriptures (and the King James Version, for instance, depended on late manuscripts from the Orthodox Church copied well over a thousand years after the autographs: as a matter of fact, I don't think they predate the schism of 1054), why do you reject that Church's interpretation. How do you know that we didn't "change" anything?

Case in point: all Christian manuscripts of the Bible have the Anagignoskomena/Deuterocanonicals: none lack them. And in this we are proved right in that the Jewish Talmud expounds on Sirach (the Hebrew text has been found in the 1800s). The Jews celebrate Hannukkah although their rejection of Maccabbees has deprived them of scriptural warrent (1 Mac. 4:56–59) for doing so (and for our Fundamentalist friends, the Gospels record Our Lord celebrating it (John 10:22-24). And the Jewish translation of Theodotion, done centuries after the rise of the Church, includes the disputed books (in fact, his transaltion of Daniel was preferred over that of the LXX by the Church, and it includes the "additions" in the LXX but not in the Masoretic text). So one can follow the path of the Apostles, or that of the Pharisees, Sadducees and Scribes.

And I haven't even touched the issue of the OT here: It seems that Perssonism rejects the Apostles in taking the Masoretic text over the LXX. Given the allusions and quotations the Apostles take from the LXX, including what the Protestant reject as "apocrypha" (e.g. Christ celebrates Hanuka in John, although its only scriptural warrent is in Maccabbees), the NT doesn't give a list of the OT (and the Jews canonized their canon, upon which the Masorites depended, not until after the rise of the Church and the NT. In fact, the Jew Theodotion in 150 was still translating into Greek for the synagogue, for instance, what Protestants (and their brethren, the Vatican) have removed from Daniel (i.e. Susanna, the Song of the Three Youths, Bel and the Dragon) what was not in the Masoretic text, but is in the LXX), nor can you reconstruct the canon from the Apostles citations.

The Church I know, so Christ I know and Paul I know, but who are you? You shouldn't wave the veil of Moses while invoking the name of Christ like a matador. You can get hurt.

Actually the Talmud is in Hebrew & Aramaic, the Mishnah is in Hebrew & the Gemara is in Aramaic, so what.

Actually so too is the Masoretic text in Hebrew & Aramaic, and like the Talmud Jewish texts against Christ, His Church and the Tradition His Apostles passed on to His Church. This is in contrast to the Peshitta and even some of the Targums.

As St. Augustine upbraided St. Jerome for departed from the marker the Church Fathers had set up by using a Jewish text, "we walk in the way of the Apostles, and not the way of the Pharisees, Sadducees and Scribes.

The Apostles and Yeshua used the pre-Masoretic Hebrew text,

Actually from His words on the Cross we know He used Aramaic.

Quote

not the LXX,

Fragments of the LXX have been found even in the caves used by the followers of Bar Kochba, and the Apostles certainly used it outside of Palestine and Syria, which is connected to your next "point"

Quote

the LXX was not used in any synagogue in Palestine,

80% of the Israelite inscriptions in Palestine (disregarding the Gentiles ones) are in Greek from the period, including a third of the inscriptions in and around Jerusalem. This would include the 1st cent. synagogue inscription of the priest Theodotus, the earliest synagogue inscription yet found:http://www.kchanson.com/ancdocs/greek/theodotus.html

Yes the LXX is translated from this text, but Greek is not one of our liturgical languages

Greek, like Hebrew and Aramaic, is one of those liturgical languages every Christian has.

Quote

Hebrew is, that's why we use the MT because it's the only complete version of the Hebrew Tanakh, the Dead Sea Scrolls are too fragmantry to work with.

The Masorectic Tanakh by definition is incomplete, as it omits the Anagignoskomena that we know, from the Talmud and the Jewish translations into Greek against the Christians use of the LXX (e.g. Theodotion) show us that in the century after the Temple's destruction the Jews were still reading and using it To this day, the only Scriptural warrant for Hanukkah is 1 Macc. iv. 59, and according to the rabbis the requirement of women participating (usually they are exempt) and eating cheese and dairy during that holiday is attributed to the story of Judith.

Quote

There is nothing wrong with the MT, it's a perfectly defensible text regarding Messianic prophecies

The same can be said of the New World Translation, the Jehovah Witnesses authorised standard (the reason I use it with dealing with their "dogma.")

Quote

(provided you know the Hebrew language), the Masorites did not alter the readings, they kept their opinions in the footnotes.

The Masoretic Tanakh, for instance, uses the truncated Daniel, when the translation of Theodotion shows that the fuller version was used even by the Jews. The commentary on Sirach in the Talmud, and is serving as the basis of the Amidah show that it too was authoritative until the rabbis grew to dislike its use for the Christian catechumate. In fact, the rabbis excised the whole of the Anagignoskomena. These are opinions not confined to "footnotes."

I believe there is some groundwork to be layed out here before a proper debate can be conducted.

First, we should realize that the Septuagint text is a greek translation of the old testament which includes the hebrew books along with the deuterocanonical books written in the intertestamental period.

This attack is directed towards these deutercononical books specifically, not the Septuagint.

Next, what does the originator of this argument consider a "bible believing church" and a "biblical Christian" to be?

No, because of the Books of Psalms, Daniel and Esther etc. it is not just a question of translations leaving out the Anagignoskomena, but of which redaction.

We know that the Jews still used the redaction that the LXX used for Daniel, becasuse the Jew Theodotion in the second century produced a translation for them with included the things (Susanna, Son of the Three Youths, Bel and the Dragon) that the rabbis, and their emulator St. Jerome and their Protestant followers, took out. They still used Sirach, as the Talmud comments on it, and it passed into Jewish liturgics. The Talmud comments on the "additions" to Esther. They still used Maccabbees because they TILL THIS day celebrate Hanukkah, and its only scriptural warrant is I Mac. 4:56–59.

The NT also in many key places quotes the LXX, not a Masoretic Urtex.

"Biblical Christian": one who doesn't know history.

"Bible believing Church":one which has no history to the Apostles.

It would seem that God continued to use the Jews rejection of their Messiah, as described in Romans quoted above, to His purposes for His Church, as demonstrated by the acceptance of Theodotion's translation. (Daniel is particularly unreadable in the original LXX version, the fact that it was written in Aramaic, not Hebrew, perhaps contributed to the difficulties).

Quote

Also, why is everyone in this thread imagining the Bible in the way that the Muslims view the Qur'an? Is there some authoritative version of the text, free from all error and discrepancy that plopped out of the heavens? If Christians talk about perfect things plopping out of the heavens, then I suppose we could only say that about Christ Himself...

Not even. Although Mr.Persson repeats the errors of Eutyches and Nestorius (quite a feat) on the hypostatic union, Christ did not come with His Body from heaven but He did take flesh and dwell among us, and, as the Orthodox Church as maintained from the time of the Apostles. preaching "the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the icon of God, for which cause we faint not; but though our outward man perish, yet the inward man is renewed day by day, While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal," (II Cor. 4:4, 16-7) yet preaching with the Evangelist (Luke 2:52) that Christ as true man, "Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man." Hence, if God the Word Who took flesh changed, so too no doubt the word of God changed. But as God the Word made man changed like us in all things save sin, so too the word of God transcribed was transmittd like a book in all things save corruption.

The fact that it seemed good to the Holy Spirit to move speakers of three languages (Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek), the spirit of Christ decidiing that the words of God the Word incarnate be transmitted (except for a few transliterated Aramaic phrases) in translation, I always took as preventing the Muslim attitude (which imitates the Jewish) to scripture. But those who wear the veil of Moses do not see that.

Quote

The Bible is a part of human history and was made by humans under divine inspiration. If the Greek translations have errors, why would anyone assume that the Hebrew also did not? These people weren't going into ecstatic trances when they wrote this stuff. Many of the text were likely edited over long periods of time before a final product was settled on. Did the text become "divine and unalterable" only at the point that they were officially promulgated by the Temple authority structure?

Couldn't have: the Temple was destoyed in vengence for the martyrdom of St. James the Brother of God before the Jews fixed their canon, and their text wasn't fixed until after the Church celebrated her triumph over the Iconoclasts.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

It is the Church, not Scripture itself, which makes the determination of what writings are inspired Scripture and what are not. That is why we have the books and texts we do, and not the contents of the Nag Hamadi library. Without the Church, there is no Scripture, whether the Old or New Testaments. And, whoever does not have the Church as his mother, does not have God as his Father.

yes, but it seems some cannot learn from the mistakes of others, and those who prefer the bomdswoman as their mother rather than the Church are, in knowledge and (as the case it seems here) in ignorance, dusting off the Nag Hamadi canon.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

In defense of the Masoretic text, the text stabilized long before 1000AD, and the readings found in the Vulgate (which was based on the Hebrew texts of its day) more often than not side with the MT whenever there are textual conflicts with the LXX. So while the MT may be 1000 years old, the bulk of the readings go back centuries before that. I'm told most of the Peshitta books have a strong affinity to the MT.

Is the MT the best Hebrew text? Perhaps not. But it's a stable one. I would tend to take notice if a cluster of early witnesses (including "proto-Masoretic" ones like the Latin or Syriac) attest to defects in the text. I think it would be stupid to put out an Old Testament translation and not give these ancient witnesses some respect.

Evidently you investigated this question. So did I, after being thoroughly confused by all the possibilities, I defaulted to faith in Christ and His apostles. Paul said God entrusted the Jews with His oracles:

If you really defaulted to faith in Christ and His Apostles, you would have joined the Church Jesus Christ founded and His Apostles established.

Its always possible what Christ said applied only to the Law, but I choose to believe it applies to all scripture unless proven different:

That's nice. Who cares what you believe? It's not truth just because you believe it is, and you already shot down our reason to believe you an authority on matters of Christian doctrine with your logical fallacies on both this and the icons thread.

There is nothing worse than doubts about God's word, for one's faith. Hence that is the first tactic Satan employed:

God's Word is Jesus Christ, not the Scriptures; the Scriptures are merely the verbal icon of Christ the Word. Even if we were to agree that the Scriptures are the words of God, we harbor no doubts about these words. The only thing we doubt here is what YOU present to be God's word.

If wrong, I'll repent on Judgment day, but I suspect defaulting to faith in Christ and His apostles will be praised, not punished, in the Day when the secrets of the heart are made manifest.

That is, if you're really defaulting to faith in Christ and His Apostles. If it ends up that you've been resisting faith in Christ and His Apostles all these years and in all these arguments, then what will you have to say for yourself on Judgment Day when the secrets of the heart are made manifest?

You must really have a warped sense of persecution if you think of this as persecution.

Not persecution, your response fits the text in other ways, for example, It wasn't until I expressed faith in Jesus that your frothing tirade reached new depths:

NKJ Luke 6:22 Blessed are you when men hate you, And when they exclude you, And revile you, and cast out your name as evil, For the Son of Man's sake. (Luk 6:22 NKJ)

But that's ok, I consider it all joy.

« Last Edit: August 13, 2010, 07:47:11 PM by Alfred Persson »

Logged

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. (Rom 1:18-19 NKJ)

Unfortunately for you, no one here hates you. So that verse doesn't really apply.

Unfortunately Mr. Persson, although he objects to the denomination Perssonism, cannot seperate himself from his views. Fortunately, we can. " save with fear pulling them out of the fire hating even the garment spotted by the flesh" Jude 23.

As St. Augustine said "Kill the sin, love the sinner."

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

In defense of the Masoretic text, the text stabilized long before 1000AD, and the readings found in the Vulgate (which was based on the Hebrew texts of its day) more often than not side with the MT whenever there are textual conflicts with the LXX. So while the MT may be 1000 years old, the bulk of the readings go back centuries before that. I'm told most of the Peshitta books have a strong affinity to the MT.

Is the MT the best Hebrew text? Perhaps not. But it's a stable one. I would tend to take notice if a cluster of early witnesses (including "proto-Masoretic" ones like the Latin or Syriac) attest to defects in the text. I think it would be stupid to put out an Old Testament translation and not give these ancient witnesses some respect.

Evidently you investigated this question. So did I, after being thoroughly confused by all the possibilities, I defaulted to faith in Christ and His apostles. Paul said God entrusted the Jews with His oracles:

If you really defaulted to faith in Christ and His Apostles, you would have joined the Church Jesus Christ founded and His Apostles established.

Its always possible what Christ said applied only to the Law, but I choose to believe it applies to all scripture unless proven different:

That's nice. Who cares what you believe? It's not truth just because you believe it is, and you already shot down our reason to believe you an authority on matters of Christian doctrine with your logical fallacies on both this and the icons thread.

There is nothing worse than doubts about God's word, for one's faith. Hence that is the first tactic Satan employed:

God's Word is Jesus Christ, not the Scriptures; the Scriptures are merely the verbal icon of Christ the Word. Even if we were to agree that the Scriptures are the words of God, we harbor no doubts about these words. The only thing we doubt here is what YOU present to be God's word.

If wrong, I'll repent on Judgment day, but I suspect defaulting to faith in Christ and His apostles will be praised, not punished, in the Day when the secrets of the heart are made manifest.

That is, if you're really defaulting to faith in Christ and His Apostles. If it ends up that you've been resisting faith in Christ and His Apostles all these years and in all these arguments, then what will you have to say for yourself on Judgment Day when the secrets of the heart are made manifest?

Alfred, we all confess Christ Jesus here, so there's no need to relate to us as if we're not Christian. We just express our faith in Jesus in a way that you don't.

LOL. Yes. His.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

The early Church Fathers, and the apostles themselves during the New Testament era, when quoting the Old Testament Scriptures, quote the Septuagint version of the text. The most astounding example is in Acts 15, the Council of Jerusalem, where the apostles must decide whether gentiles must conform to Jewish ritual to become Christians.

In rendering the Councils's decision, James quotes Amos 9:11-12, and in our New Testament (NIV), it is quoted thus:

"After this I will return and rebuild David's fallen tent. It's ruins I will rebuild, and I will restore it, that the remnant of men may seek the Lord, and all the Gentiles who bear my name....

However, if you turn to your typical Protestant Old Testament, Amos 9:11-12 reads as follows:

"In that day I will restore David's fallen tent. I will repair its broken places, restore its ruins, and build it as it used to be, so that they may possess the remnant of Edom and all nations that bear my name..."

Both of these are possible renditions from the transcripts that we have. But the difference is huge: the Septuagint says that the gentiles will seek the Lord; the Hebrew version says that "they" [the Jews] will possess the gentiles! It would humorous (if it wasn't so tragic) that most Bibles use the Septuagint quote in the New Testament, but if you cross-reference back to the Old Testament, they use the Hebrew rendering.

Not only does James quote the Septuagint - but in every case where the Hebrew and Greek texts differ (85% of the time!), the New Testament writers quote the Septuagint.

Proving the lxx is followed 85% of the time is not proving the apostles would agree with the Orthodox that ALL its changes to the MT are inspired and "to be accepted as part of God’s continuing revelation." There is 15% that disproves that.

However, your example of James citing the LXX against the Hebrew is fascinating and I believe proves yet again why the LXX is to be highly valued...often it states explicitly what was only implicit in the Hebrew and I think this is one of those times.

Amos 9:11 in both essentially agree:

In that day I will raise up the tabernacle of David that is fallen, and will rebuild the ruins of it, and will set up the parts thereof that have been broken down, and will build it up as in the ancient days: (Amo 9:11 LXE)

"On that day I will raise up The tabernacle of David, which has fallen down, And repair its damages; I will raise up its ruins, And rebuild it as in the days of old; (Amo 9:11 NKJ)

Amos 9:12 seems very different:

that the remnant of men, and all the Gentiles upon whom my name is called, may earnestly seek me, saith the Lord who does all these things. (Amo 9:12 LXE)

That they may possess the remnant of Edom, And all the Gentiles who are called by My name," Says the LORD who does this thing. (Amo 9:12 NKJ)

The context of Amos 9:1-10 is the destruction of Israel, the restoration comes in vv 11-15 which happens in the Millennial Kingdom, when Christ returns...Only then is the house of David restored.

Recall WHY James cites this----to prove the Gentiles need not be circumcised, and "with this the words of the prophets agree." How?

By predicting there will be Gentiles called by God's name even though they had never joined themselves to Israel and so were never circumcised.

the remnant of men, and all the Gentiles upon whom my name is calledthe remnant of Edom, And all the Gentiles who are called by My name,

Edom = Esau, the implacable enemy of Jacob, and all the Gentiles, also enemies of God, were now a people called by God's Name.

What happens among those called by God's Name? They earnestly seek God, that is implicit in their being in God's Country, that is what people who are called by God's name, do.

So the restored house of David posses these, "that the remnant of men (taken from those who fought against the Kingdom), and all the Gentiles upon whom my name is called, may earnestly seek me, saith the Lord who does all these things."

I have seen this before, where the Hebrew implies premises Gentiles would miss. Christ gave us an excellent example when refuting the Sadducees denial of the resurrection: Fact is, Christ only proved life after death, not the resurrection....UNLESS we see the implied premises:

26 "But concerning the dead, that they rise, have you not read in the book of Moses, in the burning bush passage, how God spoke to him, saying,`I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob '? 27 "He is not the God of the dead, but the God of the living. You are therefore greatly mistaken." 28 Then one of the scribes came, and having heard them reasoning together, perceiving that He had answered them well, (Mar 12:26-28 NKJ)

To Gentiles Christ only proved life after death, not the resurrection. But to Jesus' audience, "He had answered them well."

How so? It is impossible God not honor His promises to the patriarchs they serve Him physically forever, especially as they live with Him as constant reminders of His promises--- therefore it is impossible God not raise them up from the dead and fulfill His promises, because He is the God of the living, not of the dead.

Hebrew is very economical, much meaning is packed in a few words. Thanks be to God we have the Septuagint to aid us in unlocking some of these meanings we might otherwise miss.

But to say the Septuagint is inspired and its changes to the Hebrew are to be accepted is simply not practiced by the NT writers, there is that 15% or less where they follow the Hebrew, not the Greek. Even if you succeed in whittling this down to 1%, that is enough to disprove the idea the apostles would agree with the Orthodox and allow the Septuagint change the Hebrew.

« Last Edit: August 14, 2010, 01:18:36 AM by Alfred Persson »

Logged

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. (Rom 1:18-19 NKJ)

Well done propaganda piece...but those examples of where the apostles followed the Hebrew against the Septuagint prove there were times they would not accept the changes in the Greek as inspired.

The Orthodox elevated the Septuagint far above what it is, a translation of the Hebrew.

That said, there is evidence it preserves readings not found in the Masoretic, that's great. I am of the opinion these often shed more light on the same subject, much as these "competing" ideas do:

NKJ Matthew 13:15 For the hearts of this people have grown dull. Their ears are hard of hearing, And their eyes they have closed, Lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, Lest they should understand with their hearts and turn, So that I should heal them.' (Mat 13:15 NKJ)

NKJ John 12:40 "He has blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts, Lest they should see with their eyes, Lest they should understand with their hearts and turn, So that I should heal them." (Joh 12:40 NKJ)

The Holy Spirit wanted "both sides" of the coin revealed, and chose this way to do it. Both are correct, there is no contradiction at all. But the resolution of the apparent paradox will have to wait for another thread...its quite elementary actually...implicit in the following:

NKJ Romans 8:29 For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son (Rom 8:29 NKJ)

Both foreknowing and predestining occur to the elect who already were chosen before this event, hence the unsaved aren't mentioned at all in the context.

Rome 8i: 29 Its not about election, its describing two things God did to those He had already elected, and implicit in this is how (via foreknowledge) God will reveal/prove His choice of the elect was just:

NKJ Revelation 15:4 Who shall not fear You, O Lord, and glorify Your name? For You alone are holy. For all nations shall come and worship before You, For Your judgments have been manifested." (Rev 15:4 NKJ)

« Last Edit: August 14, 2010, 01:57:07 AM by Alfred Persson »

Logged

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. (Rom 1:18-19 NKJ)

When I was in school they taught us 85 > 15. You also keep on saying that the Septuagint made changes to the MT. I am hoping that you will admit that to be impossible unless the MT traveled back in time since it didn't exist.

When I was in school they taught us 85 > 15. You also keep on saying that the Septuagint made changes to the MT. I am hoping that you will admit that to be impossible unless the MT traveled back in time since it didn't exist.

Of course it is, but that only proves the Orthodox position on this is wrong 15% of the time:

‘The Orthodox Church has the same New Testament as the rest of Christendom. As its authoritative text for the Old Testament it uses the ancient Greek translation known as the Septuagint. Where this differs from the Hebrew text (which happens quite often), Orthodox believe that the changes in the Septuagint were made under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and are to be accepted as part of God’s continuing revelation.’-Ware, Kallistos (Timothy): The Orthodox Church, p.208; Penguin 1963,

If the apostles reject the Septuagint change even once, its clear they didn't believe the same as the Orthodox church.

I cited examples where Matthew and Paul preferred the Hebrew over the change in the Septuagint, that proves they didn't believe the changes "are to be accepted."

Logged

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. (Rom 1:18-19 NKJ)

When I was in school they taught us 85 > 15. You also keep on saying that the Septuagint made changes to the MT. I am hoping that you will admit that to be impossible unless the MT traveled back in time since it didn't exist.

Of course it is, but that only proves the Orthodox position on this is wrong 15% of the time:

‘The Orthodox Church has the same New Testament as the rest of Christendom. As its authoritative text for the Old Testament it uses the ancient Greek translation known as the Septuagint. Where this differs from the Hebrew text (which happens quite often), Orthodox believe that the changes in the Septuagint were made under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and are to be accepted as part of God’s continuing revelation.’-Ware, Kallistos (Timothy): The Orthodox Church, p.208; Penguin 1963,

If the apostles reject the Septuagint change even once, its clear they didn't believe the same as the Orthodox church.

I cited examples where Matthew and Paul preferred the Hebrew over the change in the Septuagint, that proves they didn't believe the changes "are to be accepted."

No, it proves that they didn't use it in that verse. St. Jude used the Book of Enoch without accepting it as Scripture, what was stopping St. Matthew and St. Pual from using an uncanonical reading of Scripture?

Not using does not necessarily equal rejecting. To be consistent, since the apostles rejected (to use your terminology) readings which the MT later incorporated, then they would have rejected the MT, if it had existed (which it didn't): you said "even once," and they "rejected" said readings 85% of the time.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

When I was in school they taught us 85 > 15. You also keep on saying that the Septuagint made changes to the MT. I am hoping that you will admit that to be impossible unless the MT traveled back in time since it didn't exist.

Of course it is, but that only proves the Orthodox position on this is wrong 15% of the time:

‘The Orthodox Church has the same New Testament as the rest of Christendom. As its authoritative text for the Old Testament it uses the ancient Greek translation known as the Septuagint. Where this differs from the Hebrew text (which happens quite often), Orthodox believe that the changes in the Septuagint were made under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and are to be accepted as part of God’s continuing revelation.’-Ware, Kallistos (Timothy): The Orthodox Church, p.208; Penguin 1963,

If the apostles reject the Septuagint change even once, its clear they didn't believe the same as the Orthodox church.

I cited examples where Matthew and Paul preferred the Hebrew over the change in the Septuagint, that proves they didn't believe the changes "are to be accepted."

No, it proves that they didn't use it in that verse. St. Jude used the Book of Enoch without accepting it as Scripture, what was stopping St. Matthew and St. Pual from using an uncanonical reading of Scripture?

Not using does not necessarily equal rejecting. To be consistent, since the apostles rejected (to use your terminology) readings which the MT later incorporated, then they would have rejected the MT, if it had existed (which it didn't): you said "even once," and they "rejected" said readings 85% of the time.

It is impossible to argue the apostles "believe that the changes in the Septuagint were made under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and are to be accepted as part of God’s continuing revelation" if they reject the change and stick to the Hebrew.

Its irrelevant how often they did this, doing it just once proves they wouldn't agree with the Orthodox on this.

Logged

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. (Rom 1:18-19 NKJ)

I don't think any textual type or tradition is infallible or inerrant, from the vantage-point of "original text". All the ones cited in this thread have suffered in transmission - Hebrew and Greek. In the case of the LXX, it is difficult now to completely restore the text from changes made by Lucian or Theodotion etc... If you move over into New Testament territory it's the same story. For some people - such as Bart Ehrman - the problems associated with very strict "biblical inerrancy" and all the doctrinal issues associated with it led to a loss of faith.

Can you have confidence in a text that has probably suffered interpolations and other foreign or borrowed elements that came about through transmission? Can you have faith in "85%"? The answer is a qualified yes.

BTW putting down other text types is silly. Some of the Aramaic-supremacy threads I've seen are hilarious to read. ("You Greeks corrupted the original Aramaic text of the New Testament, and our version is closer to the MT and the Hebrew"). Although the actual text of Westcott-Hort has gained wide acceptance, many of their theories on the origin of the NT text types is conjecture.